This was probably one of the first manifestations of a rejection of consideration as a cause. Nevertheless, the aspects of moral consideration remained in the principle that a promise of payment a posteriori would be applicable if the initial act had been carried out at the request of the promiser. The first question is whether the staff of the robbed bank has the right to obtain the reward or to participate in it. The great weight of authority denies. [Citation] presents the rule as follows: thus, an option is mandatory because a relatively small sum has been paid or promised in return for a right to open an offer for a given period, although the consideration, if the option is exercised, may be an astronomical amount in comparison. It is preferable to consider the exemption as covering the entire carriage, whether carried out by the carrier, the agent or an independent contractor. If a party makes a claim that it knew was unfounded, an attempt to gain an advantage through compromise would be fraudulent. It is essential to understand that there are indeed two contracts – the original contract that is the subject of the dispute, and then the second treaty, which is supposed to settle the dispute of the first. The question is whether there is a counterpart for the second treaty and what are the consequences for the obligations under the first. . . .